[http://www.ifla.org/publications/isbd-area-0-content-form-and-media-type-area Original announcement of ISBD Area 0 amendment]

+

+

[http://www.ifla.org/files/cataloguing/isbd/area-0_2009.pdf English text of the ISBD Area 0 amendment]

----

----

__NOTOC__

__NOTOC__

Line 94:

Line 98:

Again, I would recommend getting rid of "Still" and "Moving" as content qualification terms and just have "Moving image" and "Still image" as individual content forms.--Jeannette Ho

Again, I would recommend getting rid of "Still" and "Moving" as content qualification terms and just have "Moving image" and "Still image" as individual content forms.--Jeannette Ho

−

I ''think'' they want to have "image" stand alone so it can be qualified by different terms: still, moving, cartographic, tactile, 2-dimensional, and 3-dimensional. They seem to favor parsing out the different aspects of a resource as much as possible to allow for as many combinations as possible. One could argue that they should make an exception for "Moving image" and "Still image" but then this would be inconsistent with "Image (Cartographic)", "Image (Tactile)", etc. One could further argue that they should just do it for all qualified content terms (Cartographic image, Cartographic object, Tactile text, etc.), but this would make the list balloon to a large number of terms, which they don't seem to favor doing.--KINCY

+

I ''think'' they want to have "image" stand alone so it can be qualified by different terms: still, moving, cartographic, tactile, 2-dimensional, and 3-dimensional. They seem to favor parsing out the different aspects of a resource as much as possible to allow for as many different combinations as possible. One could argue that they could make an exception for "Moving image" and "Still image" but then this would be inconsistent with "Image (Cartographic)", "Image (Tactile)", etc. One could further argue that they should just do it for all qualified content terms (Cartographic image, Cartographic object, Tactile text, etc.), but this would make the list balloon to a large number of terms, which they don't seem to favor doing. It's true that it would be more intuitive to do it as Jeannette prescribed in the previous section though. Some sort of balance needs to be stricken between fancy "mixing and matching" of individual terms, and the users' perception of what they're seeing.--KINCY

+

+

I understand they want to have "image" to stand alone so it can be qualified by different terms. But I would still recommend that "Moving image" and "Still image" be made as content types, since I think it would still allow for all possible combinations (unless there is one that I wasn't thinking about). For example, if you had a moving cartographic image, you could still qualify it as cartographic: "Moving image (Cartographic) : Electronic." Similarly, if you had a tactile still image, you could still qualify it as tactile: "Still image (Tactile) : Unmediated." Also to clarify: I do not favor breaking out "cartographic" into different oontent types just to be consistent, since I agree this would balloon to an unmanageable list of terms. However, I do not see this as a problem if we broke out "Still image" or "Moving image," and that an exception could possibly be made in this case for the benefit of users.--Jeannettte Ho

==0.2 - Media Type==

==0.2 - Media Type==

Line 111:

Line 117:

Although, the term “electronic” does not match the term used by RDA (“computer”), I prefer it to "computer," since it is far more intutive. It would be helpful to be able to distinguish between resources that are accessed remotely vs. directly accessed resources with a tangible carrier, since they are very different kinds of resources. However, ISBD Area 0 does not address carrier type (which is what "online" might fall into) and it would be a challenge to come up with an adequate term for directly accessed electronic resources.--Jeannette Ho

Although, the term “electronic” does not match the term used by RDA (“computer”), I prefer it to "computer," since it is far more intutive. It would be helpful to be able to distinguish between resources that are accessed remotely vs. directly accessed resources with a tangible carrier, since they are very different kinds of resources. However, ISBD Area 0 does not address carrier type (which is what "online" might fall into) and it would be a challenge to come up with an adequate term for directly accessed electronic resources.--Jeannette Ho

+

+

I go back and forth between which is more intuitive: "electronic" or "computer"? I don't know if a user would automatically interpret "Music : Electronic" as a musical website. But I don't like the combination "Music : Computer" (or "Music : Computerized"?) either. Not sure what to think on this one. Jeannette's comment on displaying information on "remote" vs. "direct access" resources brings up a good point: why, again, are we ''not'' including carrier types in area 0? Is it in the interest of simplifying the display as much as possible?--KINCY

I am somewhat concerned about the use of the term ”unmediated” in records displayed to users. While useful for librarians, it is not really intuitive to the average library user, who may find it meaningless and confusing. I would agree with someone who posted on the RDA list that it should not be a requirement to display this term, as it is usually not necessary to communicate to users.--Jeannette Ho

I am somewhat concerned about the use of the term ”unmediated” in records displayed to users. While useful for librarians, it is not really intuitive to the average library user, who may find it meaningless and confusing. I would agree with someone who posted on the RDA list that it should not be a requirement to display this term, as it is usually not necessary to communicate to users.--Jeannette Ho

+

+

I also think this term wouldn't be helpful at all since users likely wouldn't understand what it meant. Libraries may have to program their systems to suppress this information from public view.--KINCY

+

+

----

+

+

[[Category: ISBD] [[Category: Completed documents]]

Latest revision as of 09:04, 10 June 2011

To enter your comments, click on link where you want to comment.

Please have your comments ready to paste into the wiki by first writing them in a text editor, like Microsoft Word or Notepad. Don't keep a page open for more than 5 minutes.

General Comments

I think the ISBD area 0 proposal meets its intended purpose of improving access to resources in multiple formats and those published in more than one physical medium. The notation and punctuation allows for multiple content qualifications to specify content form and allows combination of multiple content forms and media types into a succinct, easy-to-read display. This would make it a very effective “early warning device,” if placed high enough in the record. It also fulfills the IME ICC’s aim to avoid mixing the content of the resource with the presentation of the resource.
In terms of consistency, it follows RDA, more or less, faithfully and follows the RDA/ONIX Framework for Resource Categorization rather loosely. --KINCY

I think that this is a good effort, overall, and appreciate the use of relatively simple terms to communicate formats of a resource. However, I am a bit concerned about the great amount of detail that is meant to be recorded in this area. As this has the potential to result in very lengthy, somewhat complicated displays, it leads me to wonder how effective an “early warning” sign this area can be about format if it cannot be made more succinct somehow.--Jeannette Ho

Questions/Recommendations:

In the “Examples illustrating ISBD Area 0” supplementary document are the following notations: “Image (Cartographic ; Tactile)” but “Music (Notated). Music (Performed)” instead of “Music (Notated ; Performed).” Is this because “Notated” and “Performed” come from the same specification group while “Cartographic” and “Tactile” come from different groups? Should this distinction in treatment, if deliberate, be prescribed explicitly? --KINCY

Chamya asked why “Music (Notated). Music Performed” instead of “Music (Notated ; Performed).” My understanding is that this may be due to the number of units contained on a single physical item, rather than because they come from the same specification group. For instance, the notated music and the performed music are two separate units (or expressions?) contained on a single CD-ROM, so they are recorded together separated by a period. However, the map is a single unit by itself and thus, is described as such with a single content form and content qualifiers in parentheses (“Image (Cartographic : Tactile”).--Jeannette Ho

Jeannette's explanation makes sense, but I'm not sure if everyone would know to use this line of reasoning to transcribe the information correctly. I think this aspect of the notation needs more instruction.--KINCY

When multiple content qualification terms are present, does the order matter? The order of content qualification terms in the above examples reflect the same order as they are listed in Section 0.1.2. They also happen to be in alphabetical order. Which one is governing the order (list order or alphabetization)—or is their any prescribed order at all? --KINCY

I also think that the order of content qualification terms should be made explicit. It would also be helpful to have instructions on whether media type terms should be recorded in alphabetical order, if there happens to be more than one.--Jeannette Ho

In the Content Form list, maybe an “s” should be added to “Sound.” “Sounds : Audio” might be more indicative of what the user will be accessing compared to “Sound : Audio.” “Sound” seems more generic than “sounds,” the latter of which implies non-speech, non-musical sounds. RDA 6.10.1.3 has the term with an “s” (i.e. “sounds”). --KINCY

In comparison to RDA 3.2.1.2 and 6.10.1.3 and RDA/ONIX section 2.3, the language of ISBD 0 seems to encourage using as many content forms and media types as applicable but allows the alternative to use “multiform” and “multimedia” where three or more forms are given. (RDA and RDA/ONIX allows the alternative of only addressing the most substantial part(s) rather than all parts, with no preference either way.) After viewing the last example in the “Examples illustrating ISBD Area 0” supplementary document, I agree with ISBD 0’s encouragement to use as many terms whenever feasible. “Multiform : Multimedia” isn’t very helpful to the user. --KINCY

RDA allows an alternative where one can record the category that applies to the predominant part of the resource (if there is one) or the ones that apply to the most substantive parts of the resource (3.2.1.2, 3.3.1.2, 6.10.1.3). I’m assuming this option will also apply to ISBD Area 0? I think it may not always be practical or desirable to be too thorough if the purpose of this area is to provide an "early warning" for identification/selection purposes. At this stage, a user's primary concern may be that something is a video or CD-ROM, for example, and not that it has accompanying materials (such as guides, etc.), or that a website has some minor supplementary images in addition to the main text. Would it be left to cataloger judgment on when it is practical or important to record all formats in ISBD Area 0?--Jeannette Ho

I agree that the “multiform” example isn’t very informative, but I think it can still be useful to educational kits used in early grades that are made up of too many physical units to be named succinctly in ISBD Area 0 and have no predominant format. However, “kit” was a much more intutitive term than “multiform” and I wish we had the option to use that term instead in this context.--Jeannette Ho

In light of the recent MARC PROPOSAL NO. 2009-01/2: New content designation for RDA elements: Content type, Media Type, Carrier Type, how would ISBD Area 0 fit into the MARC record? Would MARC need to create another field for ISBD 0? As the terms in 336 and 337 have similar wording, wouldn’t this appear to be redundant? --KINCY

I also noticed that the information in this area duplicates what RDA already instructs us to record in the physical description portion of the bibliographic record. I agree that we might ask what additional benefit this area actually serves in addition to those fields for the physical description(336/337).--Jeannette

I do not know where ISBD Area 0 information will eventually end up in the MARC format either, but I find it difficult to predict that such lengthy and detailed information is going to be recorded in the 245 |h. It seems that we may lose one of the GMD’s great benefits: allowing users to browse an OPAC’s title list and immediately determine formats from the titles without needing to select each individual record to find out. (It looks like our systems will need to rely upon other methods of communicating format to users in a title list display such as the display of icons generated from MARC coding, etc.).--Jeannette

Just clarifying: Would a dance video be described as “Movement (Performed) : Video” while a book of choreography be “Movement (Notated) : Unmediated”? I’m unfamiliar with the concept of “movement” and the examples don’t cover this. (BTW: while “notated music” is in RDA 6.10.1.3, “performed movement” is in neither RDA 6.10.1.3 nor “RDA/ONIX”). --KINCY

As for whether “Movement” is appropriate for dance videos, the category “Movement” has instructions, “to “exclude moving images, such as motion pictures. [see image].” Thus, I don’t think that a dance video would be described as “Movement (Performed) : Video.”--Jeannette Ho

I saw the "to exclude moving images..." note too, but then wondered, what would qualify as "Movement (Performed)"? The scope note under "Performed" says "Includes recorded performances of music or movement...." How can a recorded performance of movement be experienced any other way than through a "moving image" (or video)? Again, I'm not familiar with "movement," so maybe it's just my own misunderstanding. But perhaps an example of the intended use of "Movement (Performed)" or a tweaking of the scope note under "Movement" or "Performed" would mitigate my confusion.--KINCY

0.1 - Content Form

At first glance, “Content Form” (0.1) doesn’t conform to RDA, but it, along with the “Specification of Type” group in the “Content Qualification” section (0.1.2) seems to cover all of the possibilities listed in RDA 6.10.1.3, except with more granularity. Some RDA phrases like “cartographic tactile image” and “computer dataset” are broken out into various categories in ISBD 0, making the conceptual distinction of content form, content qualification, and media type more readily perceived in the display. RDA’s unformatted phrase “Cartographic tactile image” is more readily perceived as a content form (Image) specified by content qualification subcategories “Cartographic” and “Tactile” when viewed as “Image (Cartographic ; Tactile).” Likewise, RDA’s “Computer dataset” is more readily understood as a content form (Dataset) viewed through a specific media type “Electronic” when viewed as “Dataset : Electronic.” --KINCY

Compared to the RDA/ONIX Framework, ISBD area 0’s content form terms seem to relate, in part to the “Character” primary values under the Framework’s BaseContentCategories (pg. A-1 and Appendix C).

- “Image” and “Music” are in both standards.

- RDA/ONIX’s “Language” is fleshed out into “Text” and “Spoken Word” in ISBD 0.

- ISBD 0’s “Sound” falls under the generic category of “Other” in RDA/ONIX.

- ISBD 0’s “Dataset” and “Program” seem to address the 3rd recommendation in RDA/ONIX (p. 6) “that consideration be given to defining a subset of agreed values for Form/Genre to be used by both RDA and ONIX to construct QualifiedContentCategories for … computer resources (e.g., computer data, computer program).” However, rather than making “Dataset” and “Programs” categories qualified by “computer resources,” ISBD 0 makes them content forms mediated by computer (or electronic) resources.

- “Movement” (not to be confused with ImageMovement) seems to be lacking in the RDA/ONIX Framework, although it is covered in RDA 6.10.1.3.

The only term not found in either RDA nor RDA/ONIX is “Object,” unless this is a substitution for RDA 6.10.1.3’s “Form”—as in “three-dimensional form” and “cartographic tactile three-dimensional form.” Choice of the term “Object” could be addressing RDA/ONIX’s 3rd recommendation (p. 6) that “cartographic resources” qualify “images” and “objects.” --KINCY

I am assuming that it would be incorrect to use the content form “Music” for DVDs of live musical performances (“Music (Performed : Visual : Moving) : Video”) since the content form “Movement” has instructions to “exclude moving images, such as motion pictures.” It would be helpful to repeat these same instructions for the category “Music,” so that catalogers do not end up assigning this content form for videos of live concerts, etc.--Jeannette Ho

Hmmm... I would have described such a DVD as "Music (Performed) : Video" or, at most--and with great hesitation, "Music (Performed ; Visual ; Aural)". I wouldn't have thought to add "Moving" because the scope note under "Specification of Motion" restricts its use to "image" only.--KINCY

I would also recommend breaking down “Image” into separate content types “Moving image” and “Still image.” Doing so may result in displays that are more intuitive and readily understandable to users. For example:

The above “Moving image” and “Still image” examples are closer to the “natural language” of library users, so they may be more comprehensible and effective as an “early warning” device about format than “Image (Moving)” and “Image (Still).” I also noticed that the qualifying terms “Still” and “Moving” in Section 0.1.2 are both limited to the content form “Image.” Thus, it would seem to make sense to make “Moving image” and “Still image” separate content forms. Finally, I noticed that this section already breaks down audio categories into different content forms for “sound,” “spoken word,” and “music.” Therefore, I think that this section can do the same for moving vs. still images in order to help library catalog users understand these categories more readily. (Also, RDA does not collapse moving and still images into a single “Image” category).--Jeannette Ho

0.1.2 - Content Qualification

ISBD Area 0’s “Sensory Specification,” “Specification of Dimensionality,” and “Specification of Motion” conform to RDA/ONIX’s “SensoryMode,” “ImageDimensionality,” and “ImageMovement” categories (pg. A-2 and Appendix C), respectively. “Specification of Dimensionality” and “Specification of Motion” are also found in various “un-granularized” combinations in RDA 6.10.1.3. The only oddball grouping is “Specification of Type,” which seems to be a catchall category containing two unrelated concepts: “Cartographic” vs. “Notated/Performed.” However, it all seems to work out when constructing the elements as evidenced in the “Examples illustrating ISBD Area 0” supplementary document, even if they aren’t conceptually related. --KINCY

Inclusion of “Cartographic” as a content qualifier seems to address RDA/ONIX’s third recommendation (p. 6) “that consideration be given to defining a subset of agreed values for Form/Genre to be used by both RDA and ONIX to construct QualifiedContentCategories for cartographic resources (e.g., cartographic image, cartographic object)….” --KINCY

Again, I would recommend getting rid of "Still" and "Moving" as content qualification terms and just have "Moving image" and "Still image" as individual content forms.--Jeannette Ho

I think they want to have "image" stand alone so it can be qualified by different terms: still, moving, cartographic, tactile, 2-dimensional, and 3-dimensional. They seem to favor parsing out the different aspects of a resource as much as possible to allow for as many different combinations as possible. One could argue that they could make an exception for "Moving image" and "Still image" but then this would be inconsistent with "Image (Cartographic)", "Image (Tactile)", etc. One could further argue that they should just do it for all qualified content terms (Cartographic image, Cartographic object, Tactile text, etc.), but this would make the list balloon to a large number of terms, which they don't seem to favor doing. It's true that it would be more intuitive to do it as Jeannette prescribed in the previous section though. Some sort of balance needs to be stricken between fancy "mixing and matching" of individual terms, and the users' perception of what they're seeing.--KINCY

I understand they want to have "image" to stand alone so it can be qualified by different terms. But I would still recommend that "Moving image" and "Still image" be made as content types, since I think it would still allow for all possible combinations (unless there is one that I wasn't thinking about). For example, if you had a moving cartographic image, you could still qualify it as cartographic: "Moving image (Cartographic) : Electronic." Similarly, if you had a tactile still image, you could still qualify it as tactile: "Still image (Tactile) : Unmediated." Also to clarify: I do not favor breaking out "cartographic" into different oontent types just to be consistent, since I agree this would balloon to an unmanageable list of terms. However, I do not see this as a problem if we broke out "Still image" or "Moving image," and that an exception could possibly be made in this case for the benefit of users.--Jeannettte Ho

0.2 - Media Type

The list of “Media Type Terms” has the greatest conformity to both standards, particularly the list in Table 3.1 of RDA Section 3.2.1.2, with a few changes:

- The term “Electronic” is used in lieu of RDA’s “computer.”

- ISBD 0 has an added note on the type of resource to which each Media Type term refers, which is largely redundant (eg. “Audio”: For Audio player-enabled resources), but helpful for “Electronic” which clarifies that the term is “for computer-enabled resources.”

- The definition for “Microform” lacks the phrase “not readable to the human eye,” found in RDA. (Not sure if this was an oversight or a deliberate omission.)

- Under “Unmediated,” the scope note spells out the “content” referred to in RDA as “text, music notation, images, forms, etc.” and adds the clarification that “Human-produced artefacts and naturally occurring entities are likewise considered unmediated resources.”

Although, the term “electronic” does not match the term used by RDA (“computer”), I prefer it to "computer," since it is far more intutive. It would be helpful to be able to distinguish between resources that are accessed remotely vs. directly accessed resources with a tangible carrier, since they are very different kinds of resources. However, ISBD Area 0 does not address carrier type (which is what "online" might fall into) and it would be a challenge to come up with an adequate term for directly accessed electronic resources.--Jeannette Ho

I go back and forth between which is more intuitive: "electronic" or "computer"? I don't know if a user would automatically interpret "Music : Electronic" as a musical website. But I don't like the combination "Music : Computer" (or "Music : Computerized"?) either. Not sure what to think on this one. Jeannette's comment on displaying information on "remote" vs. "direct access" resources brings up a good point: why, again, are we not including carrier types in area 0? Is it in the interest of simplifying the display as much as possible?--KINCY

I am somewhat concerned about the use of the term ”unmediated” in records displayed to users. While useful for librarians, it is not really intuitive to the average library user, who may find it meaningless and confusing. I would agree with someone who posted on the RDA list that it should not be a requirement to display this term, as it is usually not necessary to communicate to users.--Jeannette Ho

I also think this term wouldn't be helpful at all since users likely wouldn't understand what it meant. Libraries may have to program their systems to suppress this information from public view.--KINCY